Saturday, 18 January 2014

18th January 1814: The Treasury Solicitor suggests denying an informer a reward because he was a Luddite

Mr. Hobhouse presents his Compliments to Mr. Beckett, and in answer to his Note of yesterday, inclosing the written Petition of George Ward, begs leave to acquaint him that the Petitioner is the same man who on 10th April & 15th May last wrote a Lord Sidmouth two Letters on the same Subject, which were then referred to Mr. Hobhouse, & which he returned with his general Report of 23d June last, upon the Subject of the Rewards due for the apprehension of the Nottinghamshire Frame breakers. In Explanation of the Passage in that Report relative to Ward’s Claim, Mr Hobhouse takes the Liberty of stating, that Ward’s legal Right to the Rewards in question failed, inasmuch as he did not apprehend or cause to be apprehended the Felons whom he names, as he ought to have done to bring himself within the Prince Regents Proclamation. It further appeared that Ward’s losses had been in great measure reimbursed him by a private Subscription; and that his Character entitled him to no particularly favourable Consideration from the Government, since there is strong reason to believe that he was engaged in framebreaking on the very day when his own Frames were broken, & there is no doubt of his having been so engaged on a previous Day, and the Evidence which he gave on the Trial was extracted from him with the greatest Difficulty.

Mr. Hobhouse has further to inform Mr. Beckett at the beginning of November last Ld. Ellenborough sent to Mr. H. a Letter which he had received from Ward of the same Tenor as his present Petition, in consequence of which reference Mr.H. stated fully to his Lordship the matter above detailed.

A few days after, Mr. Justice Bayley transmitted to Mr. H. a similar Letter to which Mr. H. made a concise Reply to the same Effect.